Is space truly empty or is it filled with unseen forces and fields?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mani74
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Travel
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of space and whether it is truly empty or filled with unseen forces and fields. Participants explore concepts related to the propagation of light, the analogy of waves, and the presence of various fields in space.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about experimental proof of light's travel, referencing historical measurements such as those made by Roemer in 1675.
  • There is a discussion about the analogy of a Mexican wave in a stadium to explain the movement of light, with some suggesting that light is a wave and others proposing it can be viewed as particles (photons).
  • One participant suggests that the definition of movement may depend on perspective, arguing that a wave could be seen as a series of compressions and stretches in an electric field rather than a physical object moving through space.
  • Another participant asserts that space is not empty but filled with force fields and that spacetime can bend and contract in the presence of mass, implying a medium-like quality to space.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of light and space, with no consensus reached on whether space is empty or filled with fields. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of defining movement and the nature of waves, indicating that definitions may vary and are subject to interpretation.

mani74
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
hi is there any proof that light does actually travel?
 
Science news on Phys.org
mani74 said:
hi is there any proof that light does actually travel?

You mean, experimental proof that light travels at some speed as opposed to be being everywhere all at once?

Yes. The first reasonably convincing measurement of light travel was made in 1675 by an astronomer named Roemer observing the differences between the apparent position of one of Jupiter's moons and the shadow of that moon on the surface of Jupiter.

There have plenty of measurements since then; check out http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html for more history.
 
the easiest way i can explain what i mean is, if you imagine a mexican wave in a stadium, nobody is actually moving but it appears like there is a wave moving if this makes any sense?
 
mani74 said:
the easiest way i can explain what i mean is, if you imagine a mexican wave in a stadium, nobody is actually moving but it appears like there is a wave moving if this makes any sense?

Ah, OK, I think I understand what you're getting at. Two ways you can think about it:

1) Light is the wave, not the medium that's waving. So yes, the light is moving (and this is especially true when the light is traveling through the vacuum of empty space; in empty space there's nothing analogous the stadium audience which is always there even when a wave isn't moving through it).
2) You can think of light as a beam of particles called photons. These move, at the speed of light.
 
Nugatory said:
You mean, experimental proof that light travels at some speed as opposed to be being everywhere all at once?

Yes. The first reasonably convincing measurement of light travel was made in 1675 by an astronomer named Roemer observing the differences between the apparent position of one of Jupiter's moons and the shadow of that moon on the surface of Jupiter.

There have plenty of measurements since then; check out http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html for more history.

Minor correction- he was measuring the times on Earth when the moon popped out from behind Jupiter's shadow. When the Earth swung around its solar orbit by six months, the event was 92x2 million miles further away resulting in a 15 minute delay to the observed event.
 
mani74 said:
the easiest way i can explain what i mean is, if you imagine a mexican wave in a stadium, nobody is actually moving but it appears like there is a wave moving if this makes any sense?
The fact that the particles in a mechanical wave end back up where they started after a wave passes, does not mean the wave isn't moving.
 
russ_watters said:
The fact that the particles in a mechanical wave end back up where they started after a wave passes, does not mean the wave isn't moving.

yeah but in the end doesn't it just depend on what you define as moving... you could also say, the wave is not a thing moving but a series of the compression and stretching of the electric field. I mean trying to define it with human words that are relative seems kind of fuzzy, people can easily disagree with such things
 
mani74 said:
yes i think you more understand what i am trying to say that space is not empty but full of something that is every where and it is not the light that is traveling.man I am even starting to confuse myself.

Space is full of force fields, electromagnetism etc.

Spacetime can also bend and contract, in the presence of mass, so I'd say it is a medium in that way.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K